Class2: Court Structure & Researching the Facts- KV- 77-90, Hailey ZZ

court structure state issues

• Local Court/Municipal (Buffalo City, Town of Tonawanda, Village of Depew)

• County Court

• Supreme Court- 8th Judicial District

• Appellate Division 4th Department

• NYS Court of Appeals

court structure fed issues

• U.S. District Court for the Western District of

New York (17 Counties- Genesee, Niagara,

Orleans, Wyoming Chautauqua, Cattaraugus,

Allegany, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Seneca,

Wayne, Yates, Steuben, Schuyler and

Chemung)

• Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals Second

Circuit (NY, NY) (Ct., NY and VT)

• Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court

what is the court structure of erie country

Erie County, New York operates under a tiered court structure within the Eighth Judicial District that handles civil, criminal, family, and local municipal matters.

court structure for kahlil

• Started in Erie County Family Court

• Appealed to Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department - reviewed the record from the family court to decide if the judge made a mistake of law or fact. They did not hold a new trial or take new evidence

• Where would it go after: NYS court of appeals

caption determines

who is involved and their position in the appeal

important people in hailey zz

• Hailey ZZ. → the child

• Tompkins County Department of Social Services (DSS) → the agency seeking termination

• Ricky ZZ. → Hailey's father and the appellant (asking court to review what happen) 

Attorneys and Law firms — why so many? Who are these people?

• Different parties have different lawyers

• Sometimes an appellate case involves attorneys representing different interests

Conflict within the Appellate Division

• Different Appellate Divisions had reached different conclusions about whether courts could order post-termination contact. 

• FOURTH DEPT SAYS: Yes, Family Court has authority to order post-termination contact in appropriate circumstances. 

• That's the approach from Kahlil S. Your notes specifically say the Fourth Department relied on Kahlil S., Corinthian Marie S., and Selena C., and had disavowed its contrary decision in Kenneth D. 

• THIRD DEPT (court involved in Hailey ZZ): took opposite position 

• APPELLATE DIVISION SPLIT

Why does that matter?

• Court of Appeals has to resolve the disagreement. Which is why all other cases suddenly appear in the opinion 

• They're showing the Court: Here are the different approaches that New York courts have taken. We need to decide which one is correct.

How factually is this case different from Kahlil S.?

very different

Kahlil S:

• The parent's rights were terminated because the parent

• was mentally ill and unable, in the foreseeable future, to properly care for the children.

• The Fourth Department allowed Family Court to consider post-termination contact based on the children's best interests.

Hailey ZZ:

• The father was incarcerated and had been incarcerated essentially for Hailey's entire life. 

• Father sentenced to 5–15 years.

• Hailey was only three months old when he went to prison.

• He remained incarcerated.

• Hailey was placed in foster care.

• He did maintain visits with Hailey.

• He took parenting classes and obtained his GED.

• But DSS and the courts found that he had not adequately planned for her future

Does this make a difference? Should this make a difference?

• Should the different reason for termination change the legal rule about post-termination contact? 

• FATHER SAYS: it shouldn't

• MAJORITY: regardless of the particular circumstances, once parental rights are terminated under Social Services Law § 384-b, Family Court does not have statutory authority to order continuing contact. (Court is saying: The court doesn't have the legal authority to order post-termination visitation in the first place)

What facts seemed to be important?

• Fathers incarcerations: He had been incarcerated since Hailey was three months old. 

• Father’s relationship with Hailey: He visited her approximately monthly, for 3–4 hours, and she called him “Daddy”

• Father’s efforts: He took parenting classes and obtained his GED. 

• Father's planning: The courts found that he failed to adequately plan for Hailey's future while incarcerated

•  Hailey's need for permanency: She had already spent about 20 months in foster care, and the court determined that adoption would provide permanency

How do you think they made it into evidence?

• Witness testimony

• three successive DSS caseworkers and the father testified at the July 23, 2010 hearing 

• DSS records/correspondence

• Evidence presented during the lower-court proceedings

What does the Court of Appeals tell the reader about their review of the facts?

• dispositional hearing as involving factual determinations 

• The Court of Appeals is reviewing what happened in the lower court and determining whether the law was correctly applied 

How are the other Departments making decisions?

• conflict among precedents 

• Fourth Department: “Courts can do this.”

• Other Department(s): “Courts don't have this authority.”

• Court of Appeals: “We're going to decide which interpretation is legally correct.”

The Court tips its hand — p. 7 — The Court has no power here... Separation of Powers p. 8

• majority's reasoning 

• The Court is saying: The judiciary cannot simply create authority that the Legislature has not given it. (separation of powers) 

• “There is no statutory support for such authority”

The Dissent — Judge Eugene Pigott

• OBJECTIVE THEORY 

• He believed DSS had not demonstrated sufficient diligent efforts to help the father plan for Hailey's care 

• failed to clearly communicate the urgency of finding a caregiver;

• didn't adequately investigate proposed relatives;

• made assumptions about potential caregivers;

• didn't provide sufficient assistance to the father.

• He believed Family Court did have authority to order post-termination visitation when appropriate. 

• The court can exercise discretion to determine whether post-termination contact is in the child's best interests

• And he thought it made little sense to deny visitation simply because the parent contested the termination rather than surrendered parental rights 

• OVERALL: he would have reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the permanent-neglect petition without prejudice